Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
www.keaipublishing.com/en/journals/natural-gas-industry-b/

Research Article

A prevention and control method for natural gas hydrate in pipe strings
during deepwater gas well production tests*,**
Li Xiangfang a, Liu Wenyuan b,*, Liu Shujie c, Hu Jinqiu b, Nan Yufeng d, Tian Tian d &
Zhou Yunjian b
a
College of Petroleum Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, 102249, China
b
College of Safety and Ocean Engineering, China University of Petroleum, Beijing, 102249, China
c
CNOOC Research Institute Co., Ltd., Beijing, 100028, China
d
PetroChina Oil & Gas Pipeline Control Center, Beijing, 100007, China
Received 17 May 2019; accepted 25 July 2019
Available online 13 February 2020

Abstract

The prevention and control of natural gas hydrate (hereinafter, “hydrate” for short) blockage during deepwater gas well production tests is
very important in ensuring the test safety. In this paper, the distribution of wellbore temperature and pressure field under different test conditions
was analyzed, and the changes of hydrate deposition and blockage degree in the pipe string in the whole process of test under different test
systems were evaluated using the hydrate generationedepositionedecomposition calculation method. On this basis, a deepwater gas well
production test method based on hydrate prevention and control was proposed. And the following research results were obtained. First, in the
process of deepwater gas well tests, the vaporeliquid phase of annular-mist flow pattern with the greatest risk of hydrate blockage is often
formed in the wellbore. Therefore, it is more reasonable to take measures to prevent hydrate blockage in the process of tests than to prevent the
formation of hydrate. Second, when the conventional four-point test method is used, it is required to set low gas production measurement points
with lower flowing temperature. In the wellbore with high temperature and low temperature, however, hydrate tends to form and deposit easily,
and a long period of test will increase the risk of test string blockage. Third, the mixed-sequence test system suitable for deepwater gas well tests
can change wellbore temperature by adjusting the sequence of measuring points without changing the production rate and duration, so as to
decompose hydrate sediment layers and reduce the maximum blockage degree of test string in the process of tests. Fourth, a three-point or two-
point test method is recommended for deepwater gas wells without sand production, stress sensitivity, retrograde condensation and water
production. Superior to the conventional four-point test method, three-point and two-point test methods can effectively reduce the risk of hydrate
deposition and blockage in the test string, and it can shorten the testing time and reduce the test cost on the premise of ensuring the accuracy of
the productivity equation. In conclusion, the research results are of help to the field test construction of deepwater gas wells.
© 2020 Sichuan Petroleum Administration. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Keywords: Deepwater gas well; Production test; Natural gas hydrate; Prevention and control method; Mixed-sequence test; Pipe blockage degree; Flow assurance

0. Introduction
*
Project supported by the National Program on Key Basic Research Project
(973 Program) “Deep-water oil and gas well completion and production tests In the past few years, significant progresses have been
optimization” (No.: 2015CB251205). achieved in the development of deep-water oil and gas fields.
**
This is the English version of the originally published article in Natural But for China, there is still a long way to go [1e3]. Production
Gas Industry (in Chinese), which can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.3787/j.
issn.1000-0976.2019.07.008.
tests in deep-water gas wells are key techniques to capture
* Corresponding author. reservoir parameters and assess development potentials of gas
E-mail address: Wenyuan_liu@126.com (Liu WY). reservoirs. But these tests are characterized by huge technical
Peer review under responsibility of Sichuan Petroleum Administration.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ngib.2019.07.004
2352-8540/© 2020 Sichuan Petroleum Administration. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
challenges, significant safety risks and high costs [4e8].
Formation of natural gas hydrates (hereinafter, “hydrate” for
short) in pipe strings and consequential blocking in such tests
have been a headache for both gas well safety and test effi-
ciency [9,10]. Massive deposition of hydrates in test strings
may significantly narrow the flowing channel for fluids and
affect the accuracy of production tests. If the flowing space
inside pipe strings is fully blocked by such hydrates, produc-
tion tests may come to a stop. In extreme cases, build-up of
pressure may lead to pipe string fracturing, and eventually,
causing huge economic loss [11e17].
Multiple techniques have been developed for production
tests in terms of system and process to prevent and control
hydrate generation. For example, with regard to the test sys-
tem, the gas productivity in the test is enhanced to a level
above the critical gas productivity for the generation of hy-
drates [18]; though this technique can effectively eliminate the
possibility of hydrate generation, it may reduce the extent of
acceptable gas productivity. Besides, though the technique by
which the testing time is reduced to lower the volume of hy-
drate generated can reduce the risks pipe string blockage by
hydrates, a shorter testing time may negatively impact the
completeness and accuracy of fluid sampling, and may hinder
the stability of test flow [19]. With regard to well shut-in
mode, the surface shut-in is changed to downhole shut-in, so
that the possibility of hydrate generation in borehole after
shut-in can be eliminated; however, this technique may
enhance the complexity of relevant processes and the difficulty
of equipment maintenance, ultimately leading to higher costs.
With regard to the test process, the “two openings þ two shut-
ins” process is replaced by the “one opening þ one shut-in”
process [20,21], so as to reduce the risks related to abnormal
production during the second opening of a gas well induced by
the string blockage as a result of hydrate generation during the
first shut-in; however, such a simplified process may lower the
rationality of relevant test parameters and the accuracy of
solution for productivity equations. Currently, hydrate in-
hibitors are still the preference for preventing hydrates during
production tests [22e24]. To minimize the formation of hy-
drates in test strings, a large or excessive volume of hydrate
inhibitors may be added during production tests; as a result,
both operation time and costs can be very high.
As a matter of fact, there are differences between flow
barrier in test strings and pipe string blockage due to hydrate
generation during production tests. Accordingly, the authors
analyzed the distribution of temperature-pressure fields in
wellbore under different test conditions. In addition, the hy-
drate generation-deposition and decomposition calculation
methods were used to highlight the degrees of hydrate
blockage in pipe strings during the entire testing process under
different systems. On the basis of available production test
techniques for gas wells, the production test systems with
mixed sequence and variable measuring points were developed
specifically for deep-water gas wells. The study results show
that the mixed-sequence and variable measuring points test
systems can dramatically reduce the blockage degrees of hy-
drate in test strings. By coupling with a suitable volume of
83
hydrate inhibitors and optimizing gas production and testing
time, the risks related to pipe string blockage by hydrates can
be reduced, and the operation costs can be lowered. These
results can provide necessary theoretical supports for on-site
production tests of deep-water gas wells.
1. Processes and methods for production tests of deep-
water gas wells
1.1. Test processes
Fig. 1 shows the structure of a pipe string deployed for
production tests of a deep-water gas well. With a mudline as
the border, the test string can be divided into two parts. The
upper part, consisting of the components above the mudline, is
installed inside a riser to separate it from sea water. The lower
part, consisting of the components below the mudline, is
covered inside the casing to isolate it from formation. The two
parts are connected via a subsea testing tree at the mudline.
The part of the test string near the reservoir formation is
equipped with shut-in valves, while a position of the test string
below the mudline is equipped with an injection valve for
hydrate inhibitors.
At present, the innovative “one opening þ one shut-in” test
process characterized by fast cleanout, slow sampling, gentle
productivity modulation and well shut-in for restoration is
generally used for production tests of deep-water gas wells
[25]. This process can be divided into 3 stages: cleanout flow
after well opening, production flow, and pressure build-up
after shut-in Ref. [7]. During the well opening and flow
stage, adjustable nozzles are usually used to control flow,
while the flowback of fluids is recorded, the H2S and CO2
content in produced gas are monitored, and the sand produc-
tion in formation is detected and controlled; the PVT samples
of gas are taken as required in design. During the shut-in stage,
the data of pressure build-up in formation are acquired to
calculate the reservoir parameters.
1.2. Test methods
A production test starts with the reduction of gas produc-
tion after cleanout and flowback in condition of high gas
production. Under the “one opening þ one shut-in” test pro-
cess, samples are taken at a low gas productivity during the
earlier stage of production test to take fluid samples accurately.
Sampling includes downhole sampling and separator sam-
pling, which may be unsuccessful at a high gas flow rate.
Besides, steady flow is mandatory for sampling. In practices,
steady flow can be achieved in 2e4 h after opening of a gas
well with high productivity, but more than 8 h for a well with
low productivity in low-permeability gas reservoir. For sepa-
rator sampling, approximately 1 h is required to take one
group of samples [7]. Generally, a low gas production stage is
accompanied with relatively low fluid temperature in the
wellbore. Such a low temperature may accelerate the genera-
tion of hydrates, which eventually leads to flow barrier in the
wellbore.
84 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
Fig. 1. Structure of the test string for a deep-water gas well.
After the sampling stage, it is necessary to determine the
well production with variable gas productivity. Specifically,
the test production is evaluated and the deliverability
equation is built. The pressure build-up test is conducted to
acquire reservoir parameters. To ensure successful sam-
pling, separator sampling can be performed in this stage to
prepare back-up samples. In these tests, steady flow is
required under different gas productivities [7]. According to
prevailing standards, no fewer than 4 measuring points are
required for production tests. Besides the low gas produc-
tivity identified for the sampling stage, 3 different gas pro-
ductivities are required; steady flow is required for each of
the gas productivity. In other words, the stage with flows at
variable rates may last a relatively long time, which is
determined predominantly by reservoir porosity and
permeability.
Usually, tests can be performed in a normal or reversed
sequence. The gas productivity changes from low to high for
the former, while from high to low for the latter. Since a gas
well has basically an identical time span to reach and maintain
steady flow, neither sequence will present impacts on time
spans of relevant tests.
As clarified in the above section for test methods, the
testing time under each group of gas productivity is expected
to last a few hours or even longer. In the low-rate flow process
during the production flow stage, the wellbore may have re-
gions with hydrate generated due to its high-pressure and low-
temperature conditions. In some cases, such regions can be up
to several thousand meters long [26]. Once the necessary
temperature and pressure for hydrate generation are available,
hydrates may evolve in a process of gen-
erationegrowthedepositioeblockage under a prolonged
period. Eventually, hydrate films on pipe wall and grain de-
posits will narrow the diameter of the pipe string, or even
totally block the pipe. Therefore, the distribution of wellbore
pressure and temperature in different test systems should be
analyzed and assessed to figure out the countermeasures to
inhibit hydrate deposition and blockage.
2. Wellbore temperatureepressure field distribution and
hydrate generationedeposition and decomposition for
deep-water gas wells
2.1. Distribution of temperatureepressure fields in
wellbore
During production tests of deep-water gas wells, changes in
gas production may directly affect the distribution of tem-
perature and pressure fields within the test string. In the case of
a relatively low wateregas ratio (WGR), the gas/liquid phases
in the string may present an annular-mist flow pattern; a part
of water phase goes up along the pipe wall in the form of
liquid film, while the other part may be carried by gas core
flowing at a high rate in the pipe in the form of liquid drops.
Under the annular-mist flow pattern, temperature and pressure
are of great importance for generationedeposition and
decomposition of hydrates. Accordingly, different testing gas
volumes correspond to the various distribution patterns of
 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
Fig. 2. Distribution of temperature fields in wellbore under different gas tested
production rates.
temperatureepressure fields, thereby leading to the differences
in risks of pipe blockage by hydrates.
We may take a deep-water gas well A (a vertical well) in
South China Sea as an example, with its basic parameters
shown in Table 1. By using the available methods for calcu-
lating the temperatureepressure fields in wellbore during
production tests of deep-water gas wells [27,28], the distri-
bution of temperatureepressure fields in wellbore under
different gas productivities can be determined.
It can be seen in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 that the flowing pressure
in wellbore decreases with the increasing gas productivities,
but from bottom hole to wellhead, the overall pressure drop
doesn't change greatly with the gas productivity. The distri-
bution of flowing temperature within the pipe string varies
significantly under different gas productivities. Generally, the
smaller the gas productivity, the lower the overall wellbore
temperature. Around the mudline, the wellbore temperature
drops obviously. When the temperature drops to below the
temperature for hydrate generation, hydrates begin to occur;
continuous generation of hydrates may eventually lead to
blockage of the pipe string. Thus, it is highly probable that a
long-term production test at low gas productivity involves pipe
string blockage. This is a key consideration for prevention and
control of hydrates during production tests. For Well A, the
critical gas productivity at which no hydrates are generated is
determined to be 58  104 m3/d.
Table 1
Basic parameters of Well A.
Parameter Value
Well depth/m 3300
Formation pressure/MPa 39.5
Formation pressure gradient/[MPa$(100 m)1] 1.18
Sea level temperature/ C 20
Test productivity/[104 m3$d1] 20e120
Casing diameter/mm 244.48
85
Fig. 3. Distribution of pressure fields in wellbore under different gas tested
production rates.
2.2. Generationedeposition and decomposition of
hydrates
High pressure and low temperature may facilitate hydrate
generation. Natural gas with specific composition corresponds
with its specific phase equilibrium curve of hydrate. Gases
with different compositions have a similar correlation between
the hydrate phase equilibrium curve and temperature/pressure.
Fig. 4 shows the hydrate phase equilibrium curve of gas with
certain compositions. Areas with hydrate generation are
distributed on the left side of the curve. During the production
test of the deep-water gas well, an area in the test string with
sustained conditions for hydrate generation may experience
continuous generation and deposition of hydrates; as a result,
the pipe diameter is reduced constantly until the string is
completely blocked. Of course. in actual tests, flow time at
each gas productivity is limited. As the gas productivity in-
creases, the temperature and pressure within the pipe string
migrate to the right side of the hydrate phase equilibrium
curve. Then, no more hydrate generation can be observed, and
the existing hydrate will decompose. It can be inferred that the
flowing space of fluids within the test string varies with the
testing time. In this study, the ratio between the reduced cross-
sectional area of the pipe string induced by hydrate deposition
and the original cross-sectional area of the pipe string is
defined as the pipe blockage degree, so that the flow barrier
Parameter Value
Water-depth in the area/m 1335
Formation temperature/ C 95
Formation temperature gradient/[ C$(100 m)1] 3.5
Mudline temperature/ C 2.3
Test string diameter/mm 139.7
Riser diameter/mm 482.6
86 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
Fig. 4. Hydrate phase equilibrium curve of a gas with certain composition.
presented by hydrates can be quantitatively described. Next
section will discuss how the hydrate generationedeposition
and decomposition process affect the pipe blockage degree
during production tests.
Many scholars have worked a lot on the calculation of
hydrate generationedeposition. With regard to the annular-
mist flow pattern of gas/liquid phases in pipe strings, the ki-
netic model of hydrate growth constructed by Turner et al. [29]
is very accurate, as shown in Equation (1).
 
DVh C 1
¼ Fk exp  DTsub As ð1Þ
Dt T Mg rhg
in which: Vh is the volume of hydrate generated, m3; similarly,
t: the time for hydrate generation, s; Fk: the empirical rate
constant at 34.2; C: the activation temperature at the time of
hydrate generation, K, with the value of 13600 K; T: the
ambient temperature, K; Mg: the average molar mass of gas,
kg/mol, with the value of 17.8 kg/mol; rhg: the molar density of
gas in the hydrate, mol/m3, with the value of 7540 mol/m3;
Tsub: the subcooling degree, K; As: the gaseliquid contact area
at the time of hydrate generation, m2
During the production tests, the deposition of hydrates
generated on pipe walls should be considered. According to
Wang et al. [30], the hydrates generated within the test string
were originated predominantly from the liquid film on the pipe
walls and liquid drops in the gas core, and only a part of the
hydrates can deposit on pipe walls to reduce the pipe diameter.
The analysis on the deposition of generated hydrates was
made in this study with reference to the findings of Wang et al.
and the calculation of deposition rate is given in Reference
[28].
The hydrates generated may be attached to the internal wall
of the test string, and will decompose under high-temperature
and low-pressure conditions. There are multiple researches
related to the decomposition of hydrates [31,32]. Generally,
hydrate decomposition at the molecular level can be divided
into two steps: ① decomposition of hydrate cells; and ②
dispersion of absorbed gas from hydrate surface into gas phase
[33]. Goel et al. [34], and Sun et al. [35] proposed the kinetic
models of hydrate decomposition under steady temperature
and pressure based on the microscopic mechanism. In this
study, Equation (2) was derived on the basis of the model
constructed by Goel et al. [34] to describe the hydrate
decomposition volume. In the equation, both the triple-phase
line fugacity and the gas fugacity can be derived from the
SRK equation.
DV ' 1
n
 h ¼ Kd h feq  f0 A's ¼ k' V 'h ð2Þ
Dt rg
in which: Vh’ is the residual volume of hydrate after decom-
position, m3, and which can also be represented by the number
of moles (mol) of methane in the residual hydrate; similarly,
Kd: the intrinsic kinetic reaction constant, mol/(m2$MPa$min);
feq: the triple-phase line fugacity, Pa; f0: the gas fugacity, Pa;
As': the decomposition surface area of hydrates, m2; n: the
empirical index; k': the apparent decomposition kinetic con-
stant, min1.
Hydrate generationedeposition and decomposition rates
are dependent on the flow conditions in tests. To highlight the
generationedeposition and decomposition features of hydrates
in the pipe string, the above calculation methods for
generationedeposition and decomposition of hydrates were
used to derive the curves of hydrate deposition rate and of
residual volume fraction after hydrate decomposition.
Generationedeposition of hydrate is subject to the impacts of
the subcooling degree and the apparent gas flow velocity.
Generally, the higher the subcooling degree, the higher the
driving force for hydrate generation, and the higher the hy-
drate deposition rate (Fig. 5); the higher the apparent gas flow
velocity, the more the liquid drops carried in the gas core, and
the more liquid drops will form hydrate particles and adhere to
the hydrate film on pipe walls, thereby triggering a faster
hydrate deposition. Hydrate decomposition rate is sensitive to
the apparent decomposition kinetic constant, which is related
predominantly to decomposition temperature, pressure, and
configurations of hydrate deposition layers and hydrate grains.
Generally, the higher the apparent decomposition kinetic
constant (k'), the higher the residual volume fraction after
hydrate decomposition, and the higher the hydrate decompo-
sition rate (Fig. 6). The hydrate decomposition rate is signif-
icantly higher than the hydrate generation rate.
3. Prevention and control of hydrates during production
tests
Currently, there are multiple techniques available for the
prevention and control of hydrates in gas well wellbores. For
example, hydrophobic coating can be applied on the internal
surface of pipe strings [36], namely, by reducing the wetting of
pipe wall by water, attachments of hydrates can be minimized
 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
Fig. 5. Hydrate deposition rate.
effectively. Thermal insulation can also be used [37], that is,
an insulation layer is applied on pipe wall or an insulation
layer is filled in the annular space to minimize heat emission
from fluids, and consequently, to avoid hydrate generation.
Downhole choke can be installed [38] to shorten or eliminate
the hydrate generation zone in a well bore. A huge volume of
hydrate inhibitors can be injected into a well bore to change
the temperature and pressure for hydrate generation so as to
inhibit hydrate generation.
All above-mentioned techniques can effectively reduce
generation of hydrates. However, the first three techniques
may complicate field operations, and make equipment main-
tenance difficult and operation cost high. In the case of hydrate
inhibitors, a huge volume of inhibitors are required to achieve
the desirable performance, which will definitely increase
relevant costs for deep-water operations. Under such circum-
stances and with regard to safety and economics, the test
system should be optimized to prevent and control generation
of hydrates. At the same time, a proper volume of inhibitors
Fig. 6. Residual volume fraction after hydrate decomposition.
87
can be deployed to minimize the volume of inhibitors
required.
3.1. Mixed-sequence test system
During production tests, relevant operations must be
implemented to acquire required data. Generally, production
tests may involve steady production data on no less than four
measuring points. In sampling operations, low flow rate may
be taken as the first measuring point. For ensuring rational
distribution of data acquired in these tests, gas productivities
of the four measuring points should cover high, medium and
low gas production levels without being too close to each
other. It is especially true for deep-water gas wells with
annular spaces filled by water-based completion fluids. With
outstanding heat-transfer performances of fluids within the test
string to external environment, flowing temperature in the
string may be very low. Under such circumstances, at least 2
measuring points may have gas production below the critical
gas productivity for the generation of hydrates. Currently,
most of the test sequences deployed are normal and reversed
sequences.
With regard to tests with normal and reversed sequences,
measuring points with low gas production can often enable the
wellbore to meet necessary conditions for hydrate generation
due to the demands for the establishment of the production
equation or due to the constraints of reservoir conditions. In
addition, steady gas productivity is required for every
measuring point during the tests. However, since the majority
of reservoir formations penetrated by deep-water gas wells
have high to extremely high porosity and high to extremely
high permeability, with a very short time required to reach
steady flow, adjustment in the test sequence has minor impacts
on the overall duration of these tests. Under such circum-
stances, a mixed-sequence test system is recommended, as
shown in Fig. 7.
When the gas productivity in the test is lower than the
critical gas productivity for hydrate generation, the internal
diameter of the test string will reduce due to the hydrate
generationedeposition. Both theoretical studies and field ex-
periences demonstrate that the blockage degree below 30%
around the point with the most severe blockage in the test
string may have minor and negligible impacts on the test
process, and in the early stage of hydrate generation, the
shrinkage of string diameter has only a minor impact on the
test process. When the mixed-sequence test involving q1, q4,
q2 and q3 (q1 <q2 <q3 <q4) is adopted, at q1, a relatively low
gas productivity, a large extent of zones is available for hy-
drate generation in the wellbore, thus hydrate may be gener-
ated and deposit gradually within the pipe string, with the
generationedeposition rate related to the gas production rate
and corresponding flow time; at q4, as the wellbore tempera-
ture rises, the zones for hydrate generation reduces or disap-
pears, and under lower pressure and higher temperature,
hydrates on pipe walls will decompose, with the decomposi-
tion rate also related to the gas production rate and corre-
sponding flow time. The same trends can be observed at q2 and
88 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92

Fig. 7. Mixed-sequence test for a deep-water gas well. Note: q is the gas productivity in the test, 104 m3/d; pwf is the bottomhole flowing pressure, MPa; pR is the
formation pressure, MPa; t is the testing time, s.

q3. Clearly, the mixed-sequence test system can significantly of the zone for hydrate generation is approximately 1400 m.
reduce the risks related to hydrate blockage within the test Under high gas productivities of 80  104 m3/d and
string. 120  104 m3/d, hydrates decompose due to high flowing
In addition, changing the sequence of measuring points temperature within the borehole. Based on the distribution of
without changing the gas productivity at the measuring point temperatureepressure fields in the wellbore, the above-
has minor impacts on testing time and data acquisition under mentioned calculation techniques for generationedeposition
steady flow at the measuring points, and no extra man power and decomposition of hydrates were used to highlight the
or materials are needed and relevant operations will go pipe blockages by hydrates during the entire test processes
smooth. Accordingly, this technique is acceptable both theo- under three test systems, as shown in Fig. 8. For the purpose of
retically and practically. safe test, 30% was taken as the maximum allowable blockage
degree of pipe string in this study.
3.2. Degrees of pipe string blockage in normal, reversed In Fig. 8, the maximum blockage degree of test string under
and mixed sequence test systems normal and reversed sequence systems is up to 35.84%, well
above 30%. Under the normal sequence test system, the
Well A was analyzed to understand its pipe blockage by maximum blockage degree is observed at 9 h in the test;
hydrates during production tests. According to the design, the thereafter, hydrate decomposes gradually under relatively high
total testing time for this well is 30 h, and the test details are gas productivity, and the blockage is fully removed upon the
shown in Table 2. completion of the production test. Under the reversed
In Fig. 2, Well A has a critical gas productivity of sequence test system, the maximum blockage degree is
58  104 m3/d for hydrate generation. Under low gas pro- observed after the production flow stage; since the production
ductivities of 20  104 m3/d and 40  104 m3/d, hydrates are flow stage is followed by the shut-in and pressure build-up
generated continuously in the string, and the maximum length stage, the complicated pigging operation is required before
the well is put into production. Under the mixed sequence test
Table 2
system, generation and decomposition of hydrates occur twice,
Details of tests for Well A. with the maximum blockage degree of 26.09%, which is
Test stage Gas production Flow time/h
27.2% lower than that under the normal and reversed sequence
rate/(104 m3$d1) test systems; moreover, the problems related to flow barrier in
Flow-back and flow stage 65 6
test string are effectively reduced, thus the possibility of pipe
Production and flow stage q1 ¼ 20 5 blockage hydrates during the test is mitigated, and no negative
q2 ¼ 40 4 impact will occur on subsequent tests and production.
q3 ¼ 80 4 In summary, with regard to the elimination of pipe
q4 ¼ 120 4 blockage by hydrates, the reversed sequence test system can
Shut-in and pressure 0 7
build-up stage
be determined to be the most unfavorable, where severe
blockage may occur and hydrate deposits cannot be removed
 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
Fig. 8. Changes in pipe blockage degree under normal, reversed and mixed
sequence systems.
timely. The normal sequence test system is universally
deployed, which, however, fails to ensure the maximum
blockage degree controlled within the acceptable extent,
although hydrate deposits can be thoroughly removed upon the
completion of test. In contrast, the mixed sequence test system
can be seen as an optimal choice for production tests of deep-
water gas wells, since it can minimize the blockage degree to
eliminate the possibility of pipe blockage, and also enhance
the accuracy and reliability of data acquisition while ensuring
the test safety.
For some deep-water gas wells, if the mixed sequence test
system cannot ensure the pipe blockage reduction within an
acceptable extent, a common practice is to inject hydrate in-
hibitors. In field tests, the volume of hydrate inhibitors to be
injected is determined to fully eliminate the possibility of
hydrate generation in the pipe string. As a matter of fact,
generation and pipe wall attachment of a small quantity of
hydrates have ignorable impacts on the test process, so full
elimination is unnecessary. Instead, it is recommended that a
proper volume of inhibitors be injected, depending on the
actual conditions, to maintain the pipe blockage degree within
an acceptable extent.
In addition to above-mentioned measures, the gas produc-
tivity and the flow time at measuring points can be adjusted if
possible. As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, under the mixed
sequence test system, the gas productivity can be properly
increased or the flow time under low gas productivity can be
reduced to mitigate the pipeline blockage by hydrates.
Accordingly, in the test design, the gas productivity at the
measuring points should be increased and the flow time should
be reduced depending on actual situations to ensure the flow
safety within the test string to the maximum extent.
3.3. Degree of pipe blockage in test systems with
variable measuring points
According to the prevailing standards for test operations,
the four-point test method is used extensively in the industry.
89
With consideration to the principles of production test, the
three-point or two-point test method can be used in most deep-
water gas wells.
3.3.1. Three-point test method and its applicability
If the measuring points deviate from the straight line in
production tests with the four-point test method, a curve can
be fitted using the least square method to derive a productivity
equation. Equation (3) is a binomial productivity equation for
gas wells in the form of pressure square. It can be seen that the
four measuring points can be connected in one straight line if
both A and B are constants. It can be seen from the equation
for A that A is a constant only when permeability (K ) and skin
factor(S ) are constants. However, due to sand production,
water production, retrograde condensation, stress sensitivity
and other conditions during production tests, K is subject to
changes. At the same time, cleanout may remove some
reservoir damages in near-well zones occurred during
completion, so S is not a constant. Under such circumstances,
it is extremely difficult to maintain the 4 measuring points
along one straight line. If the 4 points deviate only slightly
from the straight line, 3 of the points can be used to construct
the equation to determine the productivity, showing ignorable
differences in results. For gas wells with no sand production or
water production, the three-point test method is also
acceptable.
p2R  p2wf ¼ Aqsc þ Bq2sc ð3Þ
in which:
 
1:291  103 TmZ 0:472re
A¼ ln þS
Kh rw
2:828  1021 bgg ZT
B¼
r w h2
in which: A is the Darcy flow coefficient; similarly, qsc: the
gas productivity under standard conditions, m3/d; B: the non-
Darcy flow coefficient; T: the formation temperature, K; m: the
gas viscosity, mPa$s; Z: the deviation coefficient of gas; K: the
reservoir permeability, mD; h: the effective thickness of
reservoir, m; re: the gas-supplying radius, m; rw: the borehole
radius, m; b: the turbulent velocity coefficient, m1; gg: the
relatively density of gas.
The three-point test method can promote the gas produc-
tivity at the point with high gas productivity and also enhance
the gas productivity properly at the point with low gas pro-
ductivity. In other words, the method can reduce the testing
time and minimize the deposition and blockage of hydrates in
a wellbore. If sampling is necessary, gas productivity can be
reduced properly.
3.3.2. Two-point test method and its applicability
Similarly, the two-point test method can be deployed for
reservoir formations with ideal conditions, i.e. no sand pro-
duction, no stress sensitivity, no retrograde condensation and
no water production. By using this method, it is possible to
90 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92

Table 3
Degrees of pipe blockage under different gas production rates.
Measuring Flow Test Group-1 Test Group-2 Test Group-3
point time/h Gas production Pipe blockage Gas production Pipe blockage Gas production Pipe blockage
rate/(104 m3$d1) degree rate/(104 m3$d1) degree rate/(104 m3$d1) degree
q1 5 20 26.09% 25 24.13% 30 22.33%
q4 4 120 0 120 0 120 0
q2 4 40 9.43% 40 9.43% 50 4.2%
q3 4 80 0 80 0 80 0

Table 4
Degrees of pipe blockage under different flow time.
Measuring Gas production Test Group-1 Test Group-2 Test Group-3
point rate/(104 m3$d1) Flow time/h Pipe blockage Flow time/h Pipe blockage Flow time/h Pipe blockage
degree e degree degree
q1 20 5.0 26.09% 4.5 24.59% 4.0 22.63%
q4 120 4.0 0 4.0 0 4.0 0
q2 40 4.0 9.43% 4.5 10.6% 5.0 11.46%
q3 80 4.0 0 4.0 0 4.0 0

Table 5
Content of tests for Well A under the systems with variable measuring points.
Method Stage Gas production rate/(104 m3$d1) Flow time/h
Three-point test method Flowback flow stage 65 6
Production flow stage q1 ¼ 20 5
q2 ¼ 80 4
q3 ¼ 120 4
Shut-in and pressure build-up stage 0 7
Two-point test method Flowback flow stage 65 6
Production flow stage q1 ¼ 20 5
q2 ¼ 120 4
Shut-in and pressure build-up stage 0 7

construct a productivity equation with minor error and also

further enlarge the gas productivity at the point with low gas
productivity. In this way, the risks related to deposition and
blockage of hydrates within a borehole can be reduced, and
relevant testing costs can be lowered.

3.3.3. Test assessment

With Well A as an example, the blockage degree of a test
string with three-point and two-point test methods was stud-
ied. Table 5 shows the content of tests.
It can be seen in Fig. 9 that there are significant differences
in blockage degrees at different measuring points. Fewer
measuring points correspond to shorter testing time and milder
blockage of pipe strings. With 1 to 2 measuring point(s)
reduced, the maximum pipe blockage degree is lowered to
26.09%. Obviously, tests at lower number of measuring points
may effectively reduce risks related to pipe blockage by
hydrates. Fig. 9. Changes in pipe blockage degree under the systems with variable
measuring points.
 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92 91

Table 6
Degrees of pipe blockage under three-point test method with different gas production rates.
Measuring Flow Test Group-1 Test Group-2 Test Group-3
point time/h Gas production Pipe blockage Gas production rate/ Pipe blockage Gas production Pipe blockage
rate/(104 m3$d1) degree (104 m3$d1) degree rate/(104 m3$d1) degree
q1 5 20 26.09% 30 22.33% 40 13.54%
q2 4 80 0 80 0 80 0
q3 4 120 0 120 0 120 0

Table 7
Degrees of pipe blockage under three-point test method with different flow time.
Measuring Gas production rate/ Test Group-1 Test Group-2 Test Group-3
point (104 m3$d1) Flow time/h Pipe blockage Flow time/h Pipe blockage Flow time/h Pipe blockage
degree degree degree
q1 20 5 26.09% 4 22.63% 3 18.20%
q2 80 4 0 5 0 4 0
q3 120 4 0 4 0 4 0

Additionally, in the case of tests with variable measuring compromising the accuracy of the productivity
points, the blockage degree can be further reduced by short- equation.
ening testing time or promoting gas productivity. Tables 6 and
7 provide the blockage of a pipe string under different testing
conditions by the three-point test method. Conflict of interest

4. Conclusions The authors declare that there is no conflicts of interest.

1) In the production tests of deep-water gas wells, an References

annular-mist flow pattern with the highest risks of
blockage by hydrates can be formed within the wellbore.
In field operations, taking proper measures to eliminate
the possibility of blockage by hydrates is more suitable
than the prevention of hydrate generation.
2) To deploy the conventional four-point test method, it is
necessary to select measuring points with relative low
flowing temperature and low gas productivity. Since
wellbores with high pressure and low temperature may
facilitate generation and deposition of hydrates, pro-
longed testing time may enhance the risks related to pipe
blockage.
3) The mixed sequence test system is proposed for the test
operations in deep-water gas wells. While the testing
time and the productivity are unchanged, the wellbore
temperature can be altered by adjusting the sequence of
measuring points to facilitate the decomposition of hy-
drate deposit layers. In this way, the maximum blockage
degree within a test string during the tests can be
reduced effectively.
4) For deep-water gas wells with no sand production, no
stress sensitivity, no retrograde condensation and no
water production, the three-point or two-point test
method can be used. Compared with the conventional
four-point test method, these methods involving fewer
measuring points and higher productivity can help
effectively reduce the risks related to hydrate deposi-
tion and blockage in the test string. Moreover, these
methods can reduce the testing time and costs without
[1] Jin Liping, Lü Yin, Ren Yonghong & Liu Bo. The first national inde-
pendent deep-water testing technology. Well Test 2015;24(1):50e3.
[2] Shan Ribo. Latest progress of development of deep-water offshore oil
and gas in China. Shipbuilding of China 2012;53(S1):274e8.
[3] Liu Qingyou, He Junjiang & Mao Liangjie. Safety analysis of flange joint
collapse in deep-water drilling risers. Journal of Southwest Petroleum
University (Science & Technology Edition) 2018;40(5):163e9.
[4] Li Qingping. The situation and challenges for deep-water oil and gas
exploration and exploitation in China. China Offshore Oil Gas
2006;18(2):130e3.
[5] He Jixiang, Duan Yonggang & He Yufa. Influencing factor to design of
the deep-water well test. Well Test 2013;22(2):67e8.
[6] Zhou Xuemei, Duan Yonggang, He Yufa, You Yuan, Li Guo & Deng Ke.
The flow assurance of deep-water gas well testing. J Oil Gas Technol (J
Jianghan Petroleum Inst) 2014;36(5):149e52.
[7] Dai Zong, Luo Donghong, Liang Wei, Chen Shingming &
Gong William. A DST design and practice in deep-water gasfield, South
China Sea. China Offshore Oil Gas 2012;24(1):25e8.
[8] Zhang Chuanzheng, Ma Linsong & Liu Jia. Some considerations on
deepwater gas well test design. Management and Technology of Small
and Medium-sized Enterprises 2016;(24):237e8.
[9] Li Jianzhou, Guan Lijun, Gao Yonghai & Sun Baojiang. Prediction
method of gas hydrate under condition of different productions in well
testing of deep water gas well. Well Test 2012;21(2):17e9.
[10] Reyna EM & Stewart SR. Case history of the removal of a hydrate plug
formed during deep water well testing. In: SPE/IADC drilling confer-
ence, 27 februarye1 march 2001, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2001.
https://doi.org/10.2118/67746-MS.
[11] Jin Shukai, Zhang Chong, Meng Wenbo, Yu Yi, Xu Fabin & Dong Zhao.
Gas hydrate risk and preventative measures for drilling and completion
operations in LS 17-2 deep water gas field. China Offshore Oil Gas
2015;27(4):93e101.
[12] Zhang Chong, Ren Guanlong, Dong Zhao, Yu Yi & Wu Jiang. Estab-
lishment and application of a wellbore temperature field prediction
92 Li XF et al. / Natural Gas Industry B 7 (2020) 82e92
model for deep water gas well testing. China Offshore Oil Gas
2016;28(5):78e84.
[13] Guo Xiaozhe, Wang Fusheng & Zhao Zhihui. Experimental comparison
and analysis on forecasting critical limit prewarning of hydrate in gas
wells. J Oil Gas Technol (J Jianghan Petroleum Inst)
2013;35(2):149e52.
[14] Wang Yuezeng, Tang Haixiong & Chen Fengyou. Testing practice and
process analysis of gas wells in deep water and high production. J Oil
Gas Technol (J Jianghan Petroleum Inst) 2009;31(5):148e51.
[15] Vallejo VG, Olivares A, Hdez PC, Roman ER, Maia CRT & Guajardo M.
Case history: lessons learned from retrieval of coiled tubing stuck by
massive hydrate plug when well testing in an ultra deep water gas well in
Mexico. In: SPE/IADC drilling conference and exhibition, 1e3 march
2011, amsterdam, The Netherlands; 2011. https://doi.org/10.2118/
140228-MS.
[16] Chaudhari PN. Development of hydrate risk quantification in oil and gas
production. Ann Arbor: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing; 2016.
[17] Trummer SA, Mohallem R, Franco E & De Assis JV. Hydrate remedi-
ation during well testing operations in the deepwater Campos Basin,
Brazil. In: SPE/ICoTA coiled tubing & well intervention conference &
exhibition, 26e27 march 2013, the woodlands, Texas, USA; 2013.
https://doi.org/10.2118/163881-MS.
[18] Wu Muwang, Yang Hongjun, Liang Hao, Jiang Hongfeng & Chen Ming.
Key techniques and practices of critical flow based tests for deep water
exploration wells: a case study of deep water area in the Qiongdongnan
Basin. Nat Gas Ind 2015;35(10):65e70.
[19] Standardization Committee for Oil and Gas Field Development. Natural
gas well testing technical specification: SY/T 5440-2009. Beijing: Pe-
troleum Industry Press; 2010.
[20] Liu Zhengli, Xu Mingbiao, Tang Haixiong, Wang Yuezeng, Liu Senlin &
Chen Bin. Comprehensive technology for evaluation of water-resistance
in deep-water gas reservoirs. Journal of Yangtze University (Natural
Science Edition) 2010;7(1):55e6.
[21] Wu Muwang, Liang Hao & Jiang Hongfeng. In: Key technologies and
practices of DST design for deepwater gas well. Guangzhou: the 17th
Annual Conference of China Association of Science and Technology;
2015.
[22] Zhao X, Qiu Z, Zhou G & Huang W. Synergism of thermo-dynamic
hydrate inhibitors on the performance of poly (vinyl pyrrolidone) in
deepwater drilling fluid. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015;23(3):47e54.
[23] Zhao X, Qiu Z & Huang W. Characterization of kinetics of hydrate
formation in the presence of kinetic hydrate inhibitors during deepwater
drilling. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015;22(1):270e8.
[24] Fu B, Neff S, Mathur A & Bakeev K. Application of low-dosage hydrate
inhibitors in deepwater operations. SPE Prod Facil 2002;17(3):133e7.
[25] Yang Hongjun, Wu Muwang, Yang Jihai, Liang Hao & Jiang Hongfeng.
Operation mode and key technologies for ultra-deep water gas well
testing: a case study of first ultra-deep water gas well LSE1 in the South
China Sea. China Offshore Oil Gas 2016;28(5):38e43.
[26] Li Jianzhou, Gao Yonghai, Zheng Qinghua, Sun Baojiang & Guan Lijun.
Hydrate formation prediction in deepwater gas well testing. Oil Drilling
& Production Technology 2012;34(4):77e80.
[27] Wang Z, Sun B, Wang X & Zhang Z. Prediction of natural gas hydrate
formation region in wellbore during deep-water gas well testing. J
Hydrodyn 2014;26(4):568e76.
[28] Wang Zhiyuan, Zhao Yang, Sun Baojiang & Yu Jing. Features and pre-
vention of gas hydrate blockage in test strings of deep-water gas wells.
Nat Gas Ind 2018;38(1):81e8.
[29] Turner D, Boxall J, Yang S, Kleehamer D, Koh C, Miller K, et al.
Development of a hydrate kinetic model and its incorporation into the
OLGA2000® transient multi-phase flow simulator. In: The 5th interna-
tional conference on gas hydrates, 13e16 june 2005, trondheim, Norway;
2005.
[30] Wang Z, Zhao Y, Sun B, Chen L, Zhang J & Wang X. Modeling of
hydrate blockage in gas-dominated systems. Energy Fuels
2016;30(6):4653e66.
[31] Sun Keming, Wang Tingting, Zhai Cheng, Xin Liwei & Fan Nan.
Heating decomposition interface of natural gas hydrate with different
saturations. Special Oil Gas Reservoirs 2018;25(5):129e34.
[32] Sun Keming, Wang Tingting, Zhai Cheng & Luo Huiyu. Patterns of
reservoir deformation due to thermal decomposition of natural gas hy-
drates. Special Oil Gas Reservoirs 2017;24(5):91e6.
[33] Clement E, Kopelman R & Sander LM. The diffusion-limited reaction
AþB / 0 on a fractal substrate. J Stat Phys 1991;65(5/6):919e24.
[34] Goel N, Wiggins M & Shah S. Analytical modeling of gas recovery from
in situ hydrates dissociation. J Petrol Sci Eng 2001;29(2):115e27.
[35] Sun Changyu, Chen Guangjin, Guo Tianmin, Lin Wanchen &
Chen Jiang. Kinetics of methane hydrate decomposition. J Chem Ind Eng
2002;53(9):899e903.
[36] Defever RS & Sarupria S. Surface chemistry effects on heterogeneous
clathrate hydrate nucleation: a molecular dynamics study. J Chem Therm
2018;117(2):205e13.
[37] Ghazal AA, Gad FK, Aawad MS, Desouky SM, Noamy ES &
Dardir MM. Thermal insulation for hydrate prevention in pipeline
design. Egypt J Chem 2016;59(4):465e79.
[38] Jiang L, Xu H, Shi T, Zou A, Mu Z & Guo J. Downhole multi-stage
choke technology to reduce sustained casing pressure in a HPHT gas
well. J Nat Gas Sci Eng 2015;26(9):992e8.